Bush to defeat Jihadists by making them stronger

As I listened to the Diane Rhem Show this morning Dr. Phebe Marr, author of "A Modern History of Iraq" and an expert contributor to the report of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, James Kitfield, senior correspondent, "National Journal" magazine and Col. Gary Anderson, U.S. Marine Corps--Retired all strongly made the point about how difficult it will be to withdraw from Iraq. Col Anderson's point that as we withdraw we continually have fewer troops available in country with which to protect our troops. (Force Protection.)

Essentially, getting out will be a lot harder than getting our troops into Iraq was. But just because it will be very hard to get out does not itself justify staying there and fighting.

Every strategy for success in Iraq depends on the government of Iraq taking control of that country and making it work again at least as well as it did under Saddam before we invaded. All of the Washington-designed benchmarks that were not met involved the failure of the government to achieve any success at all, and there is no indication that they will suddenly turn that around. Instead they have decided to take the month of August off and not bother trying.

Add to that the fact that our military presence can do nothing to make their government effective.

Michael Abramowitz reports today on what the National Intelligence Estimate which was released yesterday tells us. It's not good.

The White House faced fresh political peril yesterday in the form of a new intelligence assessment that raised sharp questions about the success of its counterterrorism strategy and judgment in making Iraq the focus of that effort.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary. [Snip]

Although only a portion of the instability in Iraq is attributed to al-Qaeda and the group had no substantial power base there before the U.S. invasion, Bush again cast the war as a battle against its members, whom his aides have described as key provocateurs there. [Snip]

But many Democrats questioned the administration's explanations, seizing on the key judgments of the new intelligence estimate as yet another reason to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and changing the administration's mission of the past four years.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said the current situation in Iraq "has helped to energize" al-Qaeda. "Changing our strategy in Iraq and narrowing our military mission to countering al-Qaeda terrorism -- as a bipartisan majority in the Senate now favors -- would be the single greatest thing we could do to undermine al-Qaeda's ability to use Iraq as a recruiting and propaganda tool fueling the growth of regional terrorist groups," he said in a statement.

Al-Qaeda's participation in the Iraqi violence has figured particularly heavily in recent administration arguments for a continued U.S. troop presence there, because White House strategists regard it as a politically salable reason for staying and continuing to fight.

Some terrorism analysts say Bush has used inflated rhetoric to depict al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the same group of extremists that attacked the United States on Sept. 11 -- noting that the group did not exist until after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. These analysts say Bush also has overlooked the contribution that U.S. actions have made to the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has been described as kind of a franchise of the main al-Qaeda network headed by bin Laden.

Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA analyst who has been involved in previous intelligence estimates, said that the administration has correctly identified the danger posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq and that there are indeed links between the Iraq group and the larger international terrorist network. But he said the White House is drawing the wrong conclusion, and argued instead that it is the U.S. presence in Iraq that is fueling the terrorists' cause.

"Iraq matters because it has become a cause celebre and because groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda central exploit the image of the United States being out to occupy Muslim lands," Pillar said.

Referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Clinton administration official Daniel S. Benjamin, who has written books and articles on international terrorism, said: "These are bad guys. These are jihadists." He added: "That doesn't mean we [should] stay in Iraq the way we have been, because we are not making the situation any better. We're creating terrorists in Iraq, we are creating terrorists outside of Iraq who are inspired by what's going on in Iraq. . . . The longer we stay, the more terrorists we create."

So what the Intelligence experts are pointing out is that we created the insurgency in Iraq which we are now fighting, and that our presence there, far from protecting us from Jihadists, is in fact increasing their power and number world wide.

To paraphrase Molly Ivins, we are deep inside a nasty hole in the ground from which we have to escape, yet we are trying to dig down to find a way out. That is what is known as a counter-productive strategy. You don't win a fight by making your enemy stronger. But that is exactly what we are doing.

As Diane Rhem's guests made so clear, getting out of Iraq will be very difficult. But as the new NIE points out, our presence in Iraq is contributing to our ultimate defeat there, while offering no possibility of actually winning.

We should be working to defeat the Jihadists, not to strengthen them. It really is time for us to go.